Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

New submitter ptr_88 writes: "The Free Software Foundation has opposed Mozilla's move to support DRM in the Firefox browser, partnering with Adobe to do so. The FSF said, '[We're] deeply disappointed in Mozilla's announcement. The decision compromises important principles in order to alleviate misguided fears about loss of browser market share. It allies Mozilla with a company hostile to the free software movement and to Mozilla's own fundamental ideals. ... We recognize that Mozilla is doing this reluctantly, and we trust these words coming from Mozilla much more than we do when they come from Microsoft or Amazon. At the same time, nearly everyone who implements DRM says they are forced to do it, and this lack of accountability is how the practice sustains itself.'"

Can't we just compile a version without EME? I mean Stallman should have just pointed that at least Firefox is truly free unlike IE, chrome and others whilst reminding us that we can just recompile sans EME. This is yet another case of failure withing the Free community; Destruction without ensuring the core values are witheld.

First, I am against DRM. I think it restricts fair use and innovation, is spyware, and defends obsolete business models.

But what Mozilla did was a good step. Almost every browser in the wild ships with a flash plugin. Flash is worse than any CDM.

I think EME improves current situation, when some websites don't rely on flash anymore.

Most DRM is a rootkit, and not a honest software which balances the content owner's and the users interests. The sandbox approach from Mozilla is very non-intrusive in comparison to other DRM systems, and other EME browsers. I never liked installing any DRM software on my computer, as I give it full access to my system, and I will never be abled to distinguish its behaviour from malware. But when the sandbox really is as restrictive to the blob as it should be, I will probably even use the DRM.

This step of Mozilla will make some content owners accept less intrusive DRM, which is good.

Somehow, they discovered that their previous CEO, who had made it clear that he would absolutely refuse to put DRM in Firefox, had made an embarrassing political donation, and forced him out of the company.

Here we go again. The usual FOSS battle between impossible idealism and pragmatism.

If Firefox wants to allow for a plugin that enables DRM, what of it? The users can make their own choice. They're not including it in the browser.

I know it's popular to pay lip service to the FSF but if they had their way we would all be hypocrites. Just posting on/. with all the evil minifed javascript would make us sinners. Of course, the FSF morals don't extend to it having qualms about taking [fsf.org] HP, Google and IBM dirty money.

The idea that software needs to free is bullshit, i want to run whatever i want on my system. Don't you? I don't want my morals decided by the FSF.

So doesn't this mean that someone could just fork Firefox without the DRM?

DRM in Firefox will download a binary module from adobe, and it can be enabled/disabled by the user.
No need to fork... that's way too much work...

Most likely this is just like flash plugin, except the API surface will be smaller, the module will be better sandboxed, there will be real security and work to ensure users privacy (Andreas CTO at Mozilla promised this in his blog post on the topic).
With some luck this will allow us to kill flash and silverlight... a well encapsulated module is certainly less evil.

"... the binary blob won't be included, and won't be downloaded without the user's consent."

Do you realize that every time anyone installs a new version of Firefox, the former configuration is over-written to include a maintenance service that gives Mozilla Foundation control over the user's computer? At present, that configuration can be changed back to avoid that control, but understanding how to re-configure Firefox to avoid constant outside control is not something most users understand.

To me, the direction Mozilla Foundation is going is scary. Maybe there is "user consent" now, but won't be later. Maybe "user consent" will be available only to technically-knowledgeable people.